JUDGMENT 1. This is a tenants writ petition and arises out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent filed by the landlord. 2. Sri Birbal was the tenant of the house in dispute. He is since dead and his heirs have filed this writ petition, the' suit of the plaintiffrespondent No. 3 was dismissed by the trial, court for ejectment on the ground that less than four months' rent was due on the date of the notice germinating the tenancy. 3. The plaintiff filed a revision. The revisional court was of the view that the defendants did not establish that they owed four months rent to the plaintiff, when the suit was filed, and decreed the suit. 4. Aggrieved, the tenants have filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the trial court has recorded a finding of fact in their favour that less than four months rent was due on the date of notice and it was not competent on the part of the revisional court to upset that finding. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 contends that there was no evidence in support of the trial court's finding that less than four month's rent was due and as such it was competent on the part of the revisional court to set aside the finding of fact recorded by the trial court regard to the factual position. As regards the payment of rent, what had happened, apparently, was that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent from Rs. 40 to 50, which the landlord was not competent to do. C It appears that some money order was sent by the tenant at the rate of Rs. 40, less than the rate that was claimed by the landlord, i.e. Rs. 50. The tenant thereafter made deposits under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This led to Misc. Case No. 82 of 1974, which was dismissed for default. Subsequently, another application under Section 30 of the Act was made and further deposits were made. 7. The tenant had filed copies of tenders to show that he had made the deposits. Copies of the application under Section 30 of the 'Act' were not filed. These copies would have indicated the period for which the rent was deposited. Subsequently, another application under Section 30 of the Act was made and further deposits were made. 7. The tenant had filed copies of tenders to show that he had made the deposits. Copies of the application under Section 30 of the 'Act' were not filed. These copies would have indicated the period for which the rent was deposited. A copy of the order dismissing the Miscellaneous No; 82 of 1974 was also not filed. The subsequent Miscellaneous Case No. 342 of 1974 was allowed. The tenant's contention was that in Miscellaneous Case No. 342 of 1974 it was mentioned that the deposits had already been made and as this application was allowed, the said deposits should be given credit to the tenant. Unfortunately, the tenant has not filed a copy of the order allowing the Miscellaneous Case No. 342 of 1974. 8. The revisional authority was of the view that in the absence of copy of the application under Sectitm 30 of the 'Act' and the orders passed thereon, it could not be decided as to what was the extent of the deposits and the period of deposits made by the tenant and as such it decreed the suit. What the matter really required was only an investigation of facts of the case, which only trial court was competent to do. The revisional court should have remanded the case back to the trial court to determine whether, in fact, all the rent due stood paid or not. It erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff straightaway. 9. In view of these circumstances I quash the impugned order and send the case back to the revisional court to decide the matter afresh. It ye will be open to the revisional court to send the case to trial court with permission to lead fresh evidence only for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether the deposits had been made in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs. (Petition allowed)